Jakob Bogacki

The appellant appealed a summary judgment enforcing his guarantee of a corporate overdraft credit facility.

He argued that the bank's assurances regarding dual signing authority and online account access were conditions precedent to the guarantee, and that the bank was liable for misrepresentation and negligence for allowing withdrawals before these safeguards were in place.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the assurances were not conditions precedent, the guarantee contained an entire agreement clause, and the bank did not owe a duty to deny credit facilities until the safeguards were implemented.

The appellant bank appealed the dismissal of its civil fraud claim arising from a corporate loan application supported by an allegedly false personal financial statement.

The court held that the application judge correctly applied the elements of civil fraud, including the recklessness branch, and was entitled to find that the respondent neither prepared nor signed the impugned financial statement and reasonably believed the financing was for a legitimate business.

The court further held that the bank’s own evidence established reliance only on the false personal financial statement, not on other alleged misrepresentations in the broader loan application.

No palpable and overriding error or inadequacy of reasons was shown, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant bank sought to appoint a receiver over two residential properties in Burlington owned by the respondent corporations, which had defaulted on a loan agreement.

The respondents challenged the venue, arguing the application should be transferred from Hamilton to the Central West Region where the properties and respondents were located.

The court addressed procedural issues regarding venue transfer motions under the Rules of Civil Procedure and Practice Directions, finding that the parties had improperly circumvented the prescribed transfer process.

On the merits, the court appointed a receiver, finding that the respondents were in material default, had failed to cure defaults despite multiple opportunities, and that appointment was just and convenient under the applicable statutory framework.

The court considered a motion for default judgment by the Bank of Montreal against Andrzej and Associates Property Management Inc. and Miguel Russell.

The claim arose from a dishonoured cheque deposited into the corporate account.

The court found the corporate defendant liable for the amount of the cheque and costs, but declined to find personal liability or fraud against Russell, nor to award punitive damages.

The court discussed the legal standards for default judgment, fraud, oppression under the OBCA, and punitive damages, ultimately granting judgment only against the corporation.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for a declaration that a judgment survived the respondents' bankruptcy, the successful respondents sought full indemnity costs.

The court declined to award costs, noting that the applicant had already lost the ability to collect a substantial debt due to the respondents' bankruptcy.

Relying on equitable principles and the 'fresh start' policy of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the court ordered each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant sought a declaration that debts arising from a 2016 judgment survived the respondents' discharge from bankruptcy pursuant to sections 178(1)(d) and (e) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, alleging fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence in the original pleadings or judgment to support claims of fraud, embezzlement, misappropriation, defalcation in a fiduciary capacity, or obtaining property by false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court determined the debt was a breach of contract, not fraud, and that the applicant was attempting to recharacterize the debt post-bankruptcy.

The applicant mother brought a summary judgment motion seeking declarations against the respondent father and the Director of Land Titles.

The mother sought declarations that she and the father were spouses, that the Newmarket property was a matrimonial home, and that she was entitled to compensation from the Land Titles Assurance Fund due to a fraudulent mortgage taken by the father.

The court dismissed the claims for declaratory relief against the Director, finding it lacked jurisdiction to determine compensation from the Fund at first instance, as the statutory scheme designates the Director for such determinations, subject to appeal.

The court also found that the mother had not met the summary judgment test for the relationship issues due to conflicting evidence regarding a foreign divorce and separation agreement.

The issue regarding setting aside the TELB mortgage settled.